Secular

Over the course of the last few days, many writers have congratulated or condemned President Obama for his inclusion of "nonbelievers" in his inaugural address. Though there is disagreement even within like-minded communities as to how important or meaningful the mention was, there seems to be from my anecdotal perspective a fairly universal acknowledgment that part of the reasoning for the shout-out was raw numbers. And that raw, magic number is 16.1 percent.

16.1 comes from the most recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life which sampled over 35,000 adults to see how many people believe what in the United States. Atheists are included in that very sizable number, and according to Pew, it is the fasted growing segment of all! Hooray!

But 16.1 percent of the country are not atheists. This number actually signifies those who are "unaffiliated." That means exactly what it sounds like, and I'm just going to quote the Pew website here to clarify exactly how this breaks down:

The Pew Forum reports on the religious affiliations of Members of Congress. Not surprisingly, there are some curious inequities in representation.

First some background. Atheists are indeed a tiny minority in the United States: Pew's national survey shows atheists make up 1.6% of the population, though secularists generally tend to prefer citing the 16.1% of Americans who are of no religion or unaffiliated.

For a little perspective on that 1.6 number, compare that to the national percentage of Jews (1.7%) and Mormons (also 1.7%). Doesn't look as tiny as it once did, does it?

Now let's look at Congress. According to Pew, Jews make up 8.4% of the legislative branch (almost 5 times the percentage of Jews in the general population), and Mormons make up 2.4% (twice the percentage of the general population).

I will be really glad when the hubbub over the atheist placard in Washington State is over with, but it does keep generating insight on the state of atheists in the culture--but not just in terms of how they are perceived, but in how they are portraying themselves.

Take, for example, Dan Barker, head honcho at the Freedom from Religion Foundation, an important group that is responsible for the placard which states, in part, "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." (Emphasis mine.)

[Barker] said if anything, it's the Nativity scene that is the intrusion.

"Most people think December is for Christians and view our signs as an intrusion, when actually it's the other way around," he said. "People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans."

Manitowoc County, Wisconsin County Board supervisor in charge of approving or disapproving requests for displays on county land, has settled the hoary old "separation of church and state" issue for good.

Apparently, us atheists don't exist, so we don't get equal time in Manitowoc County.

Screw the Constitution - County Board Supervisor Norbet Vogt has SPOKEN!

Norbert Vogt is a County Board supervisor on the Public Works Committee, which reviews requests to place items on county land. A sketch of the proposed display must accompany the written request.

He said he wouldn't have a problem with other faith communities — such as Jewish, Muslim, Buddhism — seeking to have a religious display at the courthouse. "It's a free country," Vogt said.

However, he would have a problem with atheists putting up a sign declaring, "There is no god."

Vogt said everybody realizes there is a Supreme Being, and it would be unacceptable to have a sign denying that reality.

Ziegelbauer said he thinks the Nativity scene "looks wonderful," though he is not involved in the approval process.

He said non-Christians, including atheists, could request display space, but said, after checking with Public Works Director Jeff Beyer, that none have.

Frackin' know-nothing, petty tinpot dictators. Local government seems to attract the type. Here's his contact page at the Manitowoc County website - you know, in case you'd like to express your opinion about his bigotry towards atheists.

Christian Trejbal is a columnist for my local paper, The Roanoke Times, and he recently wrote an editorial on "Where we vote affects how we vote". In short, he thinks voting should not take place in churches. It's not a bad column, and he brings up some good points, but I disagreed with one aspect of it. He wrote that, along with believers in other faiths, Atheists will feel uncomfortable voting in a church because of the crosses, the messages they see, etc.

The MRFF helps another atheist soldier file a suit against the Defense Department:

[link] Spc. Dustin Chalker, who has served in Korea and Iraq, is the second soldier at the northeast Kansas post to file such a lawsuit. The New Mexico-based Military Religious Freedom Foundation joined Chalker as a plaintiff in his lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan.

Here's the PDF of the "Complaint For Injunctive Relief".

I wonder how long it will be before he receives his first drunken death threat from his fellow "good Christian" soldiers?

I had never even heard of Sarah Palin until Vox Day picked her as the VP nominee two full days before it was announced by the McCain camp. (How the heck did you see that one coming, Vox?)

Now, a week or so later, I am a bit worried.

You see, like Mrs. Palin's future son-in-law Levi, I'm also a fuckin' redneck. I like to to camp, hunt, ride dirt bikes, shoot guns, and hang out with the boys. Like Todd and Sarah, I too have five kids. I worked in blue-collar, 12 hours a day, up-to-your-elbows-in-grease jobs most of my adult life. I like country music. I wear a cowboy hat. I ride horses. I drink Coors Light. I listen to the Blue Collar Comedy guys, and think Larry The Cable Guy is an unsung comedy genius.

Like I said - a redneck.

The one thing I don't share with my farmer-tanned brethren is god belief. I don't have any, but most of them do. This places me into a really weird position politically. For most of my life I voted Republican. Heck, I was a conservative Republican. But the overt and covert religiosity, and the growing dominionist, theocratic themes in the GOP turned me away. I switched over to the Libertarian Party - but it's not a great fit for me either. I don't think I'll ever be a registered Democrat. I just don't identify with enough of their platform. That's not to say that I won't vote for a Democrat though, or for a Republican for that matter, if I decide that they happen to be the best person for the job.

In any case, my point is that Sarah Palin could have stood up at the Republican National Convention and read the phone book (well, People Magazine, anyway,) and the redneck "Get 'er Done!" folks would have still voted for her - not McCain alone - in droves.

I am *already* hearing it from my redneck friends and family members. "She's just like us!" They exclaim. "That nice Levi boy is going to marry Bristol, and she's not going to kill her baby! And her mom supports her!" And what about "Iron Dog" Todd Palin, commercial fisherman, champion snowmobile racer, and oil field worker? "The First Dude is a real man - did you hear how he finished a snowmobile race with a broken arm? Very cool. I think it'd be awesome to hang out with him and have a beer." Not to mention the absolutely golden video of little Piper Palin licking her hand and smoothing down Baby Trig's hair was about the cutest thing they say they've ever seen.

Do not underestimate the redneck vote. They will rise up in a flurry of mullets and "Who Farted" hats and absolutely crush Obama and Biden if those two don't get their poop in a group and do something quickly. (Here's a tip, Barack my friend; I like you, but ease up on the anti-gun stuff, and please try to stop coming across like an Ivy League asshole when you talk to us regular joes. It's going to lose you this election if you're not careful.)

I don't know if McCain made this choice, or if it was orchestrated by Rove, but whoever did it thought it through. It is either an act of sheer genius that will sweep McCain into the Oval Office, or Palin will self-destruct even past the point where getting the redneck vote can save her. The Republicans are betting that she holds it together, obviously, and she well might.

If she does hold it together, then we might all be in a lot of trouble. Because make no mistake about it, she is a far, FAR right religious theocrat who has used her political power in the past to endorse her own wacky theology. She seems to believe that she was chosen by her God to do well in the political arena, spurred by her prophetic pastor's encouragement from his pulpit - and the VP nod is only going to fuel their conviction that she is being supported supernaturally by Binky The Magic Space Clown (or whoever she thinks made the universe with magic.)

In short, we've got to win this one folks. If we don't, we're screwed. McCain is just too damned frail to have someone like Palin sitting in the on-deck spot.

Your thoughts? What am I missing here? Is it as bad as I think it is?

I've never paid a great deal of attention to former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura. I knew he was something of a maverick with libertarian leanings who seemed to piss off most of the establishment politicians in his state, and I remembered that he had a flap in the late 90s when he called religious believers "weak minded". But for the most part he has been below my radar, so to speak.

Yet recently there had been some chatter about the possibility of Ventura running for the Senate, and last night he went on Larry King's show where he said that he had decided not to run.

Now, what's interesting is that on NPR's Morning Edition today, they played a clip from the show (which I didn't see). This is what Ventura said, when asked whether or not he would change his mind and file to run before today's 5:00 PM deadline:

Who are you going to vote for?

[John McCain] "The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." "But I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

[Barack Obama] "We are no longer a Christian nation. At least not "just". We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers."

Videos below the fold...

These stats really don't come as a surprise to me.

I find myself conflicted. I have no ready resolution to my problem. As it says in my introduction on the sidebar, I'm a liberal libertarian with conservative leanings. What that really means is that I'm a registered Independant who doesn't concur with the party platform of the Republicans and Democrats. I am, with caveats, an Objectivist. I may address the hows and whys of those tenents at another time. I promised my conundrum though, and here it is.

These parents allowed their child to die because of their religious beliefs. They allowed a sentient being, a person with their whole life ahead of them, to perish because they believed that if their daughter was worthy, or their prayers fervent enough, she'd be healed by their magic sky fairy. They have murdered their daughter. I use that term, murder, intentionally. They have willfully denied their daughter medical care and because of that she is no more. This is especially tragic to me given that I'm an atheist. Without an afterlife to "live" for, or to transit to post-death, this result, death, is the worst outcome possible in my view. The parents failure to obtain proper medical care for a perfectly treatable condition is a travesty of both life and liberty.

The "State" is not necessary for many things. We are an over-regulated people in America. We have laws governing many of our behaviours. Of these laws, I believe most to be at best unnecessary, at worst intrusive. My conundrum lies in the straight fact that I'd like what these parents have done to be illegal. I WANT state intervention because I can't think of another way to handle such a case. This couple's daughter should be alive today. I'm not feeling my libertarian edge right at this moment and I'd like it back. Help?

First of all, kudos to Allison Catalano, a sophomore at Colorado University, for starting up a chapter of the Secular Student Alliance at her school.

[link] Though there are many faith-based organizations on campus, Allison Catalano, a sophomore at CU, started the Alliance after she felt like there was no place for student atheists to assemble and get to know each other.

However, when talking about the new SSA, CU sophomore and treasurer of the Muslim Student Association (MSA), Bader Akacem, seems to have his priorities a little out of whack.

[link] (Bader Akacem) said they (the MSA) would like to meet members of the (Secular Student) Alliance and build a relationship with them. According to him, the MSA often plan dinners and various social events with other student organizations to get to know them and engage in discussion.

“The best thing we have here (CU) are a lot of religious organizations,” Akacem said.

You see, I would have said that the "best thing" at any university would be, you know, the education I was receiving at great expense.

But that's just me. At least Bader is willing to have a polite discussion with the Secular Student Alliance.

This is unlike Tom Miller, the "campus minister" at CU for the Flatirons Baptist Church. He makes no bones about why he wants to "talk" to the dirty, filthy atheists in the SSA - he wants to convert the heathens and save their eternal souls from fiery torment at the hands of Satan and his demons!

[link] (Tom Miller) said it is part of God's freedom to allow people to choose to be either a theist or an atheist. He said he wouldn't mind meeting to discuss different beliefs with the organization if they were going to be open to what he had to say.

“Some (atheists) are not open to dialogue and they'd think I was being obnoxious,” Miller said. “I would be going there to convert them and we'd clash before you even said your first name.”

So, what is the lesson the secular students at Colorado University will be taking away from this? Well, to me it seems to be that Muslim students are polite and willing to at least socialize with you, while adult Baptist "campus ministers" just want to "clash" with you, and then try to convert you.

If I were the baptist "campus minister", I'd re-think my strategy a bit.

Rather than stating this in the comments of the post, I think a response to Brent's opening paragraphs in his latest review of Vox Day's book warrant a full post.

Brent, unsurprisingly, I agree with you.

Kind of.

Sort of.

Mostly.

Here's what I agree with you about:

I have my own opinions, political views, and values. I have my own, personal, rational for being a person in whom god-belief is absent (an atheist). I recognize no "atheist leaders" or spokesmen, and I endorse no one who claims to speak for me, or insinuates that they speak for me in any way.

Here's where our opinions may part:

I have lately (within the last few years) come to believe that the entire social and political "atheist movement", as it nominally exists, is a big, fat exercise in futility. Atheists are not, in any way, shape, or form, a "group" in the same sense that Methodists, Shriners, or Republicans are a group. The atheists who organize activist marches, set agendas and identify themselves as part of this "atheist movement" group seem to be lying to themselves. There is no cohesive atheist political movement.

more below the fold

Hello All,

This is my review of Vox Day's new book called "The Irrational Atheist". I'd like to make some things perfectly clear before I proceed with this review. I am still, and barring some pretty convincing evidence that I find personally credible, will most likely always be an atheist. What I mean by "atheist", as I have written volumes about in the past, is someone in whom god-belief of any kind is absent.

I have lately (within the last few years) come to the conclusion that the entire social and political "atheist movement" is a big, fat exercise in futility. Atheists are not, in any way, shape, or form, a "group" in the same sense that Methodists, Shriners, or Republicans are a group. The atheists who blog and organize activist marches and identify themselves as part of this "atheist movement" group are lying to themselves. There is no "atheist group". Rather, a movement has emerged and become politically active lately that has co-opted the perfectly reasonable descriptive word "atheist" and has twisted its meaning into something that I do not agree with, endorse, or really even recognize any longer. Ellen Johnson telling all of us atheists to "Vote your atheism first..." was the last straw for me. I mean, what in the heck does that even mean? I am not a member of your little club, Ellen.

I have my own opinions, political views, and values. I have my own, personal rationale for being a person in whom god-belief is absent (an atheist). I recognize no "atheist leaders" or spokesmen, and I endorse no one who claims to speak for me, or insinuates that they speak for me in any way.

I speak for myself, and myself alone.

I find it troubling that one of the recent trends in the "atheist blogger" community is to label someone who does not seem to toe the party line as an "appeaser" or as a "concern troll". It's complete crap. I didn't sign a fucking "atheist loyalty oath", and my lack of belief in a god isn't dependent on kowtowing to the self-anointed leaders of this misguided abortion of a political movement, whether or not they exist. If after this review someone uses the "no true Scotsman" fallacy on me in this fashion, they can go fuck themselves. With a jagged stick. Sideways. The political and social issues that concern me - personal liberty, civil liberties, honesty, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, freedom, justice, the American Way, all of that, don't require my allegiance to some new political movement. I was concerned with those things before I started calling myself an atheist, and I still am today. Atheism has nothing at all to do with any of that stuff. (See my first paragraph above.) Nether does "theism" for that matter.

I evaluate the books I read, the beliefs I come across, and the philosophies I examine fully, and with an eye towards the facts. I have a highly-sensitive bullshit meter, honed through 20-plus years of discussion, research, study, debate, and arguments with theists (that is, folks in which god-belief of any kind is present.) So, when you read the review below, keep in mind that I was really, really trying hard to find something that I could latch onto and argue intelligently and forcefully against. I was positive that it had to be there. I had my BS meter cranked up to 11 as I read through the book twice in an attempt to sniff out something that I could use - and the damned thing only went off a couple of times, and only when Day was explicitly talking about God and/or Jesus and his personal belief in the Christian mythology.

Shit. Double shit.

Ah, well. I am ethically and morally bound to review TIA honestly, and that is what I will do - regardless of how much it hurts me to do so. Heh. ;)

So, hang on to your hats and join me below the fold.

It's official. Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to bring it into "God's standards".

[link] "[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to "pray and then work hard, and in that order," to help him secure a victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.

We are in deep trouble if this lunatic gets elected. Get out and vote, folks. Anyone is better than this guy. It absolutely floors me that in this day and age a Presidential candidate can make a statement like this - and be dead serious. This country is teetering on the brink, and will self-destruct if a religious fanatic like Huckabee is elected to the Presidency. It is up to us to stop it.

Damn. This scares the crap out of me.

(Video below the fold.)

Mitt Romney appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert, and immediately Russert hammered him with the atheist/atheism question. Romney stumbled a bit, but managed not to wedge his foot too firmly in his mouth, I thought.

But what in the heck is this "common bond of humanity" he says that he shares with atheists? Is the Mittster a Humanist now? He's trying too hard. He seems to be trying to be all things to all people, and that's just a recipe for disaster.

Transcript below the fold...

Alicia Colon, writing an op-ed piece for the New York Daily Sun, is upset that in the city of New York, Christian nativity scenes are not given parity with other religious displays on public property.

I actually agree with her on this point. If this is indeed the case, then it is a wrongheaded and illegal move by the school board. The Constitution protects all faiths - even Christians - and non-faith. To say otherwise is simple ignorance.

[Alicia Colon] The tyranny of a small but vocal minority has completely warped this time of year into a season of litigation and constitutional confusion. Our own Department of Education, which bans Christian religious symbols in schools, needs to educate itself on exactly what the Constitution says about God and country.

Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about God. It does say a lot about country though.

A City Council member, Tony Avella, has introduced a resolution granting parity to Christians so that crèches will be permitted alongside menorahs and the star and crescent in city schools. At present, the education department will not allow it, though there is no constitutional bar to this nativity display. At a press conference at City Hall this week, Mr. Avella and other community activists demanded equal justice, but the mere fact that this is an issue demonstrates how little is understood about the First Amendment, which does allow the "free exercise of religion."

First of all, there is no city resolution anywhere in America that can "grant" anyone a right that is already guaranteed by the Constitution. If Councilman Avella thinks that he has this kind of power, then he needs to re-think his place in the world. I mean, thanks a bunch for trying to help, Councilman, but there is no reason to act like a fool doing it.

I also have an issue with the way Miss Colon attempts to support her contention about the city excluding Christians. She tries to make the case that because the founders said "God" a lot, and because they wrote about God a lot, then Christians should be free to place their own religious displays alongside other religious displays on public property.

She also uses Newt Gingrich's achingly dominionist film "Rediscovering God in America" as an argument for her position.

The thing is that she doesn't need all that stuff. The Constitution, and the First Amendment already give Christians "parity" to use the public square.

The U.S. Constitution is the only legal founding document we have. Other documents have undeniable historical value, but they do not carry the force of law. There is no dispute - the Constitution is the basic foundation of the laws of our land. Everything that is America flows from the ideas and concepts embodied within it.

So, how many times do you think "God" mentioned in the Constitution? How about "Jesus" or "Christ"? What about "Creator", "Supreme Being", "Thor", "Big Magic Ju-Ju Guy", or "Santa Claus"?

If you said "zero", you are exactly right. The Constitution is a wholly secular document by design. Our Founding Fathers were wise men to craft it as such.

The First Amendment guarantees us our freedom of expression, religion, and press. Inherent in that freedom is the freedom to not believe. That is what us atheists call "freedom from religion", and apparently what Miss Colon is objecting to in the headline of her column.

The very best course our government can take in this is strict neutrality. This is what the First Amendment means. That way, individuals may practice or not practice, believe or not believe, with our government staying strictly neutral - neither hindering nor helping. This concept has been borne out by more than 200 years of wildly successful religions and religious growth in our country, and lately in the rise of atheist, agnostic, and other secular people's voices, organizations, blogs, writings, and political awareness. We have the freedom to be religious - whatever we want to be - or not religious. There is no other country like this on the planet, with this type of unbridled religious freedom. And it is due to the secular, neutral stance that our government (should) take - the secular, neutral stance spelled out in the First Amendment to our Constitution.

The obvious example - especially at this time of the year - of what this means in practical terms is that you cannot allow a Christian Nativity scene on public property without also allowing everyone else the same privilege.

The problem here is that in most cases like this, the Christian majority wants to be "more equal" than the rest of us. They have enjoyed special preference by virtue of being the majority for so long, that they now consider it their right.

In some isolated cases like the one above in New York, the pendulum swings too far in the other direction. This is also wrong.

Alicia, you don't need a lot of god-talk to make your point. Our secular Constitution does it for you just fine.

Today Romney gave a speech on his Mormonism to squelch the effects of religious bigotry on his chances of receiving the Republican nomination for President. In the speech Glen Johnson of AP cites these three quotes in succession (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_el_pr/romney_religion_28;_ylt=...):

"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

He assailed "the religion of secularism" he said was creeping into American life, and drew chuckles from his invited audience as he complained that Europe's picturesque cathedrals are largely empty amid societies "too busy or just too `enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer."

Romney said: "We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders, in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history and, during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."

So let me get this straight. We should be tolerant of other people’s revelation of the divine.

But if your personal revelation should lead you to a secular worldview, then you should just accept that you are not a citizen. At least that is what I take from his condemnation of the enlightenment (which by the way the founders would have taken a dim view of) and his endorsement of the phrases In God “WE” trust (if you don’t trust God you are not part of WE) and “One nation” under God (if you don’t believe in God you are not part of this “one nation).”

Way to attack religious bigotry Mitt. By perpetuating that a significant percentage of the American public is less American than others because of religious beliefs.

Hypocrisy, thy name is religion.

Tully

Congrats, Dawn and Rob! Every win helps!

[link] U.S. District Court Judge Robert Gettleman blocked a northwest suburban school district from following the mandate, and he could extend the ban to schools statewide today. In his preliminary ruling, Gettleman found that the law was vague and questioned how teachers and school officials were supposed to follow it and how it was to be enforced.

The ruling is a victory for atheist Rob Sherman, who brought the lawsuit against Township High School District 214, where Sherman's daughter, Dawn, is a freshman at Buffalo Grove High School.

"It's state sponsorship of prayer," Sherman said.

"It's nice to win one, for a change," joked the activist, who is often in court battling for atheist causes.

Betty Dowdell is a Christian apologist who lives out here in my neck of the woods. She's the author of "How to be a Christian Without Being Annoying", and is touted as a home-spun apologist who speaks in plain words for the average Christian. She claims that most Christians don't even know what the word "apologist" means, so, basically, she dumbs it down for them into easily-digested chunks.

How sweet.

This doesn't make her any less annoying, regardless of what her book is titled. She repeats so many of the same, old, tired arguments that it make me tired to think about even starting to address them all. Again. However, one article she wrote stood so far out there with the astonishing assertion below that I couldn't let it go - I had to address it. It's just, well, a bald-faced lie. I mean, most of the time apologists leave themselves some sort of "out" so that they can later claim that they didn't really mean what they said, and that us nasty church-state separation supporters are obviously quoting them out of context, or some such.

Please, I strongly encourage you to read her whole article. You'll agree that her statement below definitely means what it says, even in context with the rest of the article. Here, just check it out for yourself:

[Betty Dowdell] ...the Constitution specifically provides for a Christian chaplain for each branch of Congress.

Well then Betty, I guess you won't have any trouble pointing out the specific part of the Constitution that actually says this.

More below the fold...